Re: Versionned dependancies on build-essential packages. (was: Re: Where did Bacula 1.38.11-7+b1 come from?)
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 04:35:44PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 07:30:38PM +0100, Andreas Metzler a ?crit :
>
> > Build-Depends: dpkg-dev (>=1.13.19)
> > Package: foo
> > Architecture: all
> > Depends: foo-binary (>= ${source:Version}), foo-binary (<< ${source:Version}.1~), foo-doc (= ${source:Version})
> >
> > Package: foo-binary
> > Architecture: any
> > Depends: foo-data (= ${source:Version})
> >
> > Package: foo-doc
> > Architecture: all
>
> [Thread from -devel diverted to -mentors.]
>
> Hi,
>
> I was just wondering the reason why the build-dependancy on dpkg-dev is
> necessary. Dpkg-dev is build-essential and is > 1.13.19 in unstable and
> testing anyway. Couldn't this be safely omitted when uploading for
> unstable ?
For unstable, yes. For backports perhaps or "self-documentation". I
would guess that it uses the likes of ${Source:Version}.
Justin
Reply to: